Ignorance

This note examines ignorance as a condition that shapes how living beings, collectives, and design processes act, with more-than-human design in mind.

Definitions and Approach

Across disciplines including ecology, science and technology studies (STS), biosemiotics, multispecies studies, animal studies, and more-than-human design, ignorance appears in multiple linked senses:

a basic condition of life in changing worlds,
a level of uncertainty deeper than calculable risk,
a socially produced absence, and
a design problem that arises when some beings, signals, and ontologies fall outside the frame.1^,2^,3^,4

Ignorance can protect, harm, exclude, enable, or discipline action, depending on how it arises and who bears the consequences.5^,6

Living systems do not overcome ignorance by reaching full knowledge. They persist because they sense selectively, hold several possible responses in play, and stay able to shift when the world exceeds prediction.7^,8^,9

A working definition can be:

Ignorance is a relational condition in which finite beings and collectives must act without full access to the worlds they inhabit, while community interactions, cultures, traditions, practices, organisations, institutions and ontologies also shape what can appear as knowable, learnable, retainable, or actionable.1^,2^,3^,4

Under this definition, design must move beyond extending human knowledge over passive beings, entities, or surroundings. It must build arrangements that hold open plural knowers, plural worlds, and plural response pathways under conditions that stay partly unknowable.10^,11^,8

Registers of Ignorance

Register	What ignorance means	Main mechanism	Why it matters for design
Constitutive	No organism or system meets the whole world; each acts from partial, usable signs2^,7	Information reduces uncertainty locally and in context rather than removing it2	Support situated sensing and feedback; do not assume complete representation
Epistemic and ontological	Some unknowns are shallow and reducible; others involve indeterminacy, ambiguity, or unstable worlds12^,4	Uncertainty ranges from statistical error to recognised ignorance and irreducible unpredictability12^,4	Separate when to measure, when to plan for scenarios, and when to proceed with precaution and reversibility
Produced	Institutions can organise, maintain, and distribute ignorance through secrecy, categories, and neglect13^,3	Selective attention, suppression, underfunding, framing, and strategic doubt13^,3	Ask what is unknown, and who or what has been made unknowable
Distributed and relational	Bodies, groups, habitats, and environmental scaffolds often share knowing14^,15	Social signalling, cultural transmission, overlapping Umwelten, and ecological memory14^,15	Damage to habitats or transmission pathways can destroy knowledge and organisms
Political-ontological	The categories that define reality can build in ignorance1^,16	A dominant ontology renders other beings, relations, and obligations unintelligible1	Ask which worlds a design's terms allow to appear, and which they exclude
Adaptive	Systems cope with ignorance through redundancy, degeneracy, and distributed robustness rather than perfect foresight8^,9	Partial functional overlap, excess capacity, and flexible reassignment8^,9	Frame intelligence as keeping plural response options, not as optimising one best solution

Ignorance as a Condition of Living Systems

Ignorance is intrinsic to life because organisms never grasp the world in full. They survive by extracting usable information from a field of excess signals, not by building exhaustive internal models.2^,7 Information is a local reduction of uncertainty that lets a system act well enough as conditions change.2

This reframes intelligence:

Living systems are selective interpreters.
They cope by responding to cues, building habits, and modifying the environments that later guide action.7
Ignorance is part of the normal ecology of perception and action.

See Intelligence, Cognition, and Biosemiotics.

Bounded rationality gives a human and organisational analogue to situated knowledge in living systems. The “economic man” does not possess complete environmental knowledge or unlimited computational capacity.17 This supports a design stance in which action proceeds through satisficing, cues, partial models, and revisable commitments rather than optimisation.

Ignorance as Deep Uncertainty

Kinds of not-knowing matter. Design cannot treat every unknown the same way (see Uncertainty).

One framework distinguishes the location, level, and nature of uncertainty. It moves from statistical uncertainty to scenario uncertainty, recognised ignorance, and total ignorance.4
Governance work adds a distinction between epistemic uncertainty, ontological uncertainty, and ambiguity. Each can affect the substance of an issue, the strategies of actors, or the institutions that decide.12

Data alone cannot fix some forms of ignorance. When the causal structure stays open, agents frame situations differently, or the world behaves unpredictably, design needs precaution, reversibility, participation, and capacity to change course.12^,4 (See Risk, Scenarios, and Robustness.)

Ignorance as Produced Absence

Institutions often make ignorance through secrecy, selective research agendas, suppression, strategic doubt, and habits of neglect.3^,13 Ignorance is a political achievement as much as a natural horizon (see Bias and Limitations).

Ignorance has properties that can inform design and action: ontology, chronicity, granularity, scale, and intentionality.13 A temporary unknown differs from a structurally maintained absence. A missing detail differs from an erased domain of inquiry.13 A design process can look well informed while still reproducing large blind spots because missing knowledge was screened out upstream.

This bears directly on more-than-human questions:

When species, ecological relations, or knowledge traditions are absent from a design frame, that absence may not be accidental.
It may be built into the categories, funding patterns, and standards of evidence that define what counts as relevant knowledge.13^,3

Ignorance in Distributed and Nonhuman Cognition

Knowledge often sits outside isolated human minds (see Knowledge and Agency).

Animal groups can generate shared meaning by signalling across overlapping Umwelten, which produces group-level capacities that no single individual holds.14
Nonhuman animals can also count as knowers in a practical sense, because they acquire and pass on skills, routes, and environmental judgements through social learning.15

Ignorance is distributed as well. When people sever migration routes, remove older knowledgeable animals, or strip habitats of the cues that once scaffolded learning, the loss is epistemic and numerical.15 A system becomes ignorant when the relations that carry knowledge break down.

Intelligence sits across a wider field of organisms, signals, and infrastructures. Design fails when conditions for shared sensing and learning break down.14^,15 See Redundancy and Memory.

Case: The impact on animal culture makes distributed ignorance visible as a conservation problem. In elephants, social disruption through the death or removal of individuals can break pathways of information transmission. Disrupted populations become less cohesive, may show reduced fitness or calf survival, and may respond inappropriately to threats. In migratory animals, social information and social learning can shape routes, timing, and movement diversity. Conservation can destroy knowledge without noticing it, because what is lost is not only population size or habitat area but living pathways of knowledge and practice transmission.18^,19^,20^,21^,22

Ignorance, Information, and Multiple Worlds

Information dynamics clarify this point (see Information and Niche).

Ecological persistence depends on information alongside energy and materials, and information processing links levels from cells to ecosystems.2
This information is also semiotic. Signs matter because organisms interpret them in context.2^,7
A niche is therefore not merely a physical environment but a semiotic one, shaped by the signs that organisms leave for themselves and others through recursive interaction.7

Conflicts often concern what counts as real within a world and how to manage a shared world.23^,16 Policies and design processes often encode a dominant ontology that lets rivers, landscapes, animals, or reciprocal obligations appear only as resources, impacts, or cultural beliefs.1 This ignorance is an exclusion built into the terms of reality (see Ontology and Political Ontology).

Ontological accountability asks which assumptions about beings, relations, rights, and responsibilities already do work inside a policy or design frame.1 Many failures of inclusion begin before consultation, at the level of categories (see Inclusivity).

Case: Conservation data can produce ignorance even when it appears to expand evidence. Environmental data justice shows that data infrastructures privilege some epistemic communities, methods, and framings over others. “Conditional visibility” names a related problem: local or Global South scholarship may become visible only when it aligns with Global North priorities. The design issue is the unequal organisation of visibility to less powerful agencies, including nonhuman beings.24^,25

Case: Ontological ignorance appears when a process decides what kind of thing can count as a stakeholder, impact, value, relation, or obligation. A human design process can therefore exclude a river, mountain, animal, ancestor, or reciprocal relation by translating them into resource, amenity, ecosystem service, data point, or belief.26^,27^,28

Redundancy, Degeneracy, and Intelligence under Ignorance

Living systems cope with ignorance through redundancy and degeneracy (see Redundancy and Robustness).8^,9

Redundancy in the strict sense uses identical elements that back one another up.
Degeneracy uses structurally different elements that perform overlapping functions while staying distinct in other contexts.8 This arrangement gives a system both robustness and adaptability.
Networked buffering uses partial overlap so spare capacity in one part of a system can absorb disturbance elsewhere through chains of reassignment.9

Robustness rests on organised heterogeneity, flexible roles, and distributed capacity to respond, not on a stockpile of exact backups.8^,9

Intelligence is the capacity to hold enough variety, overlap, and reserve to choose among several responses when conditions shift.8^,9 Ignorance is part of what intelligence is for (see Intelligence).

Working Synthesis

Six working claims:

Ignorance is constitutive of life. Organisms know through situated reductions of uncertainty rather than total access to reality.2^,7
Ignorance has levels. Some unknowns are measurable; others involve indeterminacy, ambiguity, or total surprise.12^,4
Ignorance is often produced. Institutions, categories, and strategic doubt can make relevant realities absent or marginal.13^,1^,3
Ignorance is distributed. It can emerge when social learning, habitat cues, and shared semiotic worlds break down.14^,15
Ignorance is ontological as well as epistemic. Design may fail because it assumes the wrong world and lacks key data.23^,1^,16
Living systems cope with ignorance through excess. Degeneracy, overlap, and distributed robustness keep open the power to respond otherwise.8^,9

More-than-human design builds arrangements that preserve plural knowers, plural worlds, and plural response pathways under conditions that stay partly unknowable.10^,11^,8

Design Moves under Ignorance

Investigate when ignorance is temporary, local, and reducible without causing harm.
Monitor when conditions change faster than a design can predict.
Keep options open when causal relations remain unstable or partly unknowable.
Use precaution when action can cause irreversible harm.
Repair knowledge pathways when social learning, habitat cues, memory, or cultural transmission have been damaged.
Redistribute attention when institutions have made some beings, relations, or knowledges invisible.
Refuse totalisation when knowing becomes extractive, assimilative, or ontologically violent.
Build degeneracy when resilience depends on multiple distinct ways to perform overlapping functions.
Make models accountable when regulation depends on simplified representations of complex worlds.
Document unresolved questions so that ignorance remains visible rather than disappearing behind confident design language.

More-than-Human Participatory Responses

The responses might include:

being with other species in place,
enacting other species to test human assumptions,
designing proxies, guardians, or institutions for rights of nature,
slowing decisions so that ecological cues can register,
involving Indigenous and local knowledge without forcing it into a single ontology,
tracking what a method excludes,
documenting what remains unresolved.

Notes

Footnotes

Moon, Katie, and Katharina-Victoria Pérez-Hämmerle. “Inclusivity via Ontological Accountability.” Conservation Letters 15, no. 5 (2022): e12888. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12888.˄
O’Connor, Mary I., Matthew W. Pennell, Florian Altermatt, Blake Matthews, Carlos J. Melián, and Andrew Gonzalez. “Principles of Ecology Revisited: Integrating Information and Ecological Theories for a More Unified Science.” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7 (2019). https://doi.org/10/gkdx4q.˄
Proctor, Robert N., and Londa L. Schiebinger. Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008.˄
Walker, Warren E., Poul Harremoës, Jan Rotmans, Jeroen P. van der Sluijs, Marjolein B. A. van Asselt, Peter P. M. Janssen, and Martin P. Krayer von Krauss. “Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support.” Integrated Assessment 4, no. 1 (2003): 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1076/iaij.4.1.5.16466.˄
Kourany, Janet A., and Martin Carrier, eds. Science and the Production of Ignorance: When the Quest for Knowledge Is Thwarted. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2020.˄
McGoey, Linsey. “Strategic Unknowns: Towards a Sociology of Ignorance.” Economy and Society 41, no. 1 (2012): 1–16. https://doi.org/10/ghxjhz.˄
Peterson, Jeffrey V., Ann Marie Thornburg, Marc Kissel, Christopher Ball, and Agustín Fuentes. “Semiotic Mechanisms Underlying Niche Construction.” Biosemiotics 11, no. 2 (2018): 181–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-018-9323-1.˄
Tononi, Giulio, Olaf Sporns, and Gerald M. Edelman. “Measures of Degeneracy and Redundancy in Biological Networks.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96, no. 6 (1999): 3257–62. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.6.3257.˄
Whitacre, James M., and Axel Bender. “Networked Buffering: A Basic Mechanism for Distributed Robustness in Complex Adaptive Systems.” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 7, no. 1 (2010): 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4682-7-20.˄
Akama, Yoko, Ann Light, and Takahito Kamihira. “Expanding Participation to Design with More-than-Human Concerns.” Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020 - Participation(s) Otherwise (New York), PDC ’20, 2020, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3385010.3385016.˄
Roudavski, Stanislav. “The Ladder of More-than-Human Participation: A Framework for Inclusive Design.” Cultural Science 14, no. 1 (2024): 110–19. https://doi.org/10.2478/csj-2024-0015.˄
Dewulf, Art, and Robbert Biesbroek. “Nine Lives of Uncertainty in Decision-Making: Strategies for Dealing with Uncertainty in Environmental Governance.” Policy and Society 37, no. 4 (2018): 441–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1504484.˄
Croissant, Jennifer L. “Agnotology: Ignorance and Absence or towards a Sociology of Things That Aren’t There.” Social Epistemology 28, no. 1 (2014): 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2013.862880.˄
Lewis, Amelia. “Total Umwelten Create Shared Meaning the Emergent Properties of Animal Groups as a Result of Social Signalling.” Biosemiotics 13, no. 3 (2020): 431–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-020-09395-8.˄
Lopez, Andrew. “Nonhuman Animals and Epistemic Injustice.” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 25, no. 1 (2023): 136–63. https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v25i1.2201.˄
Yates, Julian S., Leila M. Harris, and Nicole J. Wilson. “Multiple Ontologies of Water: Politics, Conflict and Implications for Governance.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 35, no. 5 (2017): 797–815. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775817700395.˄
Simon, Herbert A. “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69, no. 1 (1955): 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852.˄
Bates, Lucy, Victoria Louise Fishlock, Joshua Plotnik, Shermin de Silva, and Graeme Shannon. “Knowledge Transmission, Culture and the Consequences of Social Disruption in Wild Elephants.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 380, no. 1925 (2025): 20240132. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2024.0132.˄
Derham, Tristan, and Freya Mathews. “Elephants as Refugees.” People and Nature 2, no. 1 (2020): 103–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10070.˄
Aikens, Ellen O., Iris D. Bontekoe, Lara Blumenstiel, Anna Schlicksupp, and Andrea Flack. “Viewing Animal Migration through a Social Lens.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 37, no. 11 (2022): 985–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.06.008.˄
Animal Culture and Conservation: some key references | Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals ˄
Brakes, Philippa, Sasha R. X. Dall, Lucy M. Aplin, Stuart Bearhop, Emma L. Carroll, Paolo Ciucci, Vicki Fishlock, et al. “Animal Cultures Matter for Conservation.” Science 363, no. 6431 (2019): 1032–34. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw3557.˄
Cadena, Marisol de la. Earth Beings: Ecologies of Practice across Andean Worlds. Durham: Duke University Press, 2015.˄
Goldstein, Jenny E., Dan Brockington, Chris Sandbrook, Patrick Meyfroidt, Jonas Geldmann, Tobias Kuemmerle, Marion Pfeifer, et al. “Environmental Data Justice Is Key for Developing More Effective Area-Based Conservation Approaches.” Nature Reviews Biodiversity 2, no. 2 (2026): 116–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00126-w.˄
Maliao, Ronald, and Béla Tóthmérész. “Beyond Conditional Visibility: Operationalizing Epistemic Justice in Conservation Science.” Environmental Conservation 53, no. 2 (2026): 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892926100381.˄
Cadena, Marisol de la, and Mario Blaser, eds. A World of Many Worlds. Durham: Duke University Press, 2018.˄
Tym, Christian. “Indigenous Knowledge and Ontological Difference? Ontological Pluralism, Secular Public Reason, and Knowledge between Indigenous Amazonia and the West.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 66, no. 2 (2024): 267–93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417523000440.˄
Flemmer, Riccarda, Verena Gresz, and Jonas Hein. “What Is at Stake? The Ontological Dimension of Environmental Conflicts.” Society & Natural Resources 37, no. 5 (2024): 608–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2329888.˄